Case 1403970/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Peck (Counsel) For the v Ms Y Montaz (tribunal advocate) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403970/2018
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Dated
- Panel members
- Mr N Cross, Mrs C M Earwaker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Peck (Counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that complaint of detriment 1, arising on 29 July 2018 and based on a protected disclosure, succeeded against the First Respondent only. It ordered the First Respondent to pay £4,532.49, made up of £4,000 for injury to feelings, £482 interest agreed by the parties, and £50.49 in relation to expenses.
The complaint of detriment 1 against the Second Respondent, and the complaints of detriments 2 to 5 against both Respondents, failed and were dismissed. The automatic unfair dismissal complaint for making a protected disclosure also failed and was dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time. The tribunal sat with Employment Judge Gray and members Mr N Cross and Mrs C M Earwaker.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment 1, said to have occurred on 29 July 2018, for making a protected disclosure; succeeded against the First Respondent only. The award was £4,532.49, comprising £4,000 injury to feelings, £482 interest agreed by the parties, and £50.49 in relation to expenses. | Upheld | — | £4,532 |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment 1 for making a protected disclosure against the Second Respondent, and detriments 2 to 5 for making a protected disclosure against both Respondents, were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint for making a protected disclosure was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,532
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.